Post-Activation Potentiation in Strength Training: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature - Sciendo
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 78/2021, 141-150 DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2021-0034 141
Section III – Sports Training
Post-Activation Potentiation in Strength Training:
A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature
by
Arkaitz Garbisu-Hualde1, Jordan Santos-Concejero1
This review aimed to determine the ideal combination of post activation potentiation (PAP) strategies for an
improved strength performance. After analysing 202 articles, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings of this
review suggest that a potentiation effect exists as long as a minimum intensity and enough rest are provided. Although
intensities of 65% 1RM are sufficient to elicit a potentiation effect, higher effects can be achieved with 85 - 90% 1RM
intensities. Similarly, we found that experienced athletes will benefit more from a higher volume bout (1-3 sets), as long
as 7-8 minutes of rest are allowed to avoid fatigue.
Key words: PAP, complex training, performance, resistance training, strength training.
Introduction mechanisms (Gołas et al., 2016), (ii) volume,
During the last few years post-activation which is inversely proportional to intensity, (iii)
potentiation (PAP) has been used to acutely resting time, which is directly conditioned by
improve power output and muscular function intensity and volume (Kilduff et al., 2008), and
(Maloney et al., 2014). PAP is commonly used (iv) movement similarity (Dello Iacono et al.,
during the warm-up through complex training, 2018).
which refers to a training method where heavy To date, very different protocols have
resistance exercises are used prior to a been used trying to achieve optimal potentiation
biomechanically similar ballistic movement with opposing results (Dello Iacono et al., 2018;
(Poulos et al., 2018). Gołas et al., 2017; Kobal et al., 2019). Thus, the aim
PAP acts through skeletal muscle of this review was to compare different protocols
contractile history, where the muscle is pre- and to clarify the importance of the
activated with a higher load using a conditioning aforementioned variables on the conditioning
activity before performing a training session or a activity. We hypothesized that the volume load
competition. Two mechanisms have been would be the main conditioning factor to achieve
suggested: (i) the phosphorylation of myosin an optimal potentiation, followed by intensity.
regulatory light chains and (ii) improved -
Methods
motoneuron excitability (Gołas et al., 2016).
Additionally, according to the vector theory Experimental Approach to the Problem
(Morin et al., 2010), biomechanical similarities A literature search was conducted on
between the conditioning and the effective October 23, 2020. The following databases were
activity (the competition, training bout or test) searched: PubMed and Scopus. The previously
play a crucial role in potentiation. Four main named databases were searched from inception to
variables are thought to act over the conditioning October 2020, with language limitations: only peer
activity: (i) intensity to activate the working reviewed articles in English were selected.
1 - Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz (SPAIN).
.
Authors submitted their contribution to the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 78/2021 in April 2021.142 Post-activation potentiation in strength training
Citations from scientific conferences were Results
excluded.
Literature Search Studies Selected
In the database, the title and abstracts The search strategy yielded 202 total
were searched. The following MeSH terms and citations as presented in Figure 1. From those 202
key words, combined with the Boolean operators articles, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Excluded
(AND, OR), were used: “athletic performance”, studies had at least one of the following
“resistance training”, “post activation characteristics: the potentiation protocol included
potentiation”, “PPA”, “PAP”, “post-activation strategies different from resistance training (e.g.
potentiation”, “potentiation post activation”, electrostimulation or vibration), participants were
“potentiation post-activation”, “performance”, not experienced lifters (had less than 2 years of
“strength performance”, “strength training”, resistance training experience or less than 2 x
“strength” and “powerlifting”. No additional bodyweight squat 1-RM) or the evaluation
filters or search limitations were used. protocol was done with sprinting bouts (Table 1).
Inclusion Criteria Level of Evidence and Quality of the Studies
Studies were eligible for further analysis if Ten of the seventeen included studies had
the following inclusion criteria were met; a) a level of evidence 1b (good quality randomized
subjects´ age ranged between 18-30 years; b) control trials). The 7 remaining studies had a level
studies analysed experienced lifters; c) post- of evidence of 2b (individual cohort studies).
activation potentiation was studied in sports with Also, the mean score in the PEDro scale was 6.47 ±
high requirements of the rate of force 0.87, with values ranging from 5 to 7 (Table 1).
development; d) the potentiation protocol was Characteristics of the Participants
conducted with barbell exercises; e) pre- and post- Participants were characterized as
evaluation was done with a resistance exercise, experienced or well-trained athletes due to their
vertical jump or similar (i.e. squat jump, counter training experience or their one repetition
movement jump or drop jump). In the studies maximum (the maximum amount of weight that a
where volume was not directly reported, it was person is able to lift for one repetition). A
calculated as follows: volume = sets x repetitions x summary of participants´ characteristics is
kilograms. presented in Table 2. The total number of
Quality assessment participants was 279 (253 men, 6 women and 20
Oxford’s level of evidence (OCEBM unknown).
Levels of Evidence Working Group, 2011) and the Studies matching volume load
Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale Five of the included 17 studies matched
(Maher et al., 2003; de Morton, 2009) were used in the volume load in the protocols used. From these
order to assess the methodological quality of the five studies, three compared different intensity
studies included in the review. Oxford’s level of protocols (Dello Iacono et al., 2019; Lowery et al.,
evidence ranges from 1a to 5, with 1a being 2012; Mina et al., 2019) and two the optimal rest
systematic reviews of high-quality randomized interval (do Carmo et al., 2018; Kilduff et al.,
controlled trials (RCT) and 5 being expert 2008).
opinions. The PEDro scale consists of 11 different Mina et al. (2019) performed a study
items related to the scientific rigor. Given that comparing free weight back squats and variable
assessors are rarely blinded and that blinding resistance back squats (elastic bands were used to
participants is almost impossible, items 5-7 (which generate the 35% of the total load at the upper
are specific to blinding) were removed from the part of the squat). Under the free weight
scale (Baz-Valle et al., 2018). With the removal of condition, no significant changes were found in
these items, the maximum result on the modified jump height, peak power or a normalized (to
PEDro scale was 7 (the first item is not included in body weight) rate of force development (RFD)
the final score) and the lowest, 0. Zero points are compared to pre-intervention performance. On
awarded to a study that fails to satisfy any of the the other hand, under the variable resistance
included items and 7 points to a study that condition, statistically significant increases (p <
satisfies all the included items. 0.05) in CMJ height were observed at 30 s (5.9 ±
1.2%), 4 min (5.6 ± 1.8%), 8 min (6.5 ± 2.6%) and 12
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 78/2021 http://www.johk.plby Arkaitz Garbisu-Hualde and Jordan Santos-Concejero 143
min (5.3 ± 2.5%) compared to pre-intervention. In dissipate the fatigue created by the conditioning
addition, statistically significant increases (p < activity. They conducted a study and no
0.05) were evident in peak power at 30 s (4.7 ± significant changes were observed after the
1.2%), 4 min (5.9 ± 1.3%), 8 min (4.4 ± 1.7%) and 12 conditioning activity in the fixed rest interval
min (4.8 ± 1.7%) time points. These changes in group (38.0 ± 5 cm vs. 37.7 ± 5.1 cm; p = 0.4; ES =
CMJ height and peak power were also 0.04) nor in the self-selected rest interval group
significantly different from the free weight from pre- to post-test (38.2 ± 4.6 cm vs. 40.5 ± 4.4
condition group (p < 0.05). cm).
Dello Iacono et al. (2019) compared the Studies not matching volume load
effect of two protocols using the individualized The remaining twelve of the included 17
optimal power load with traditional and cluster- studies did not match the volume load in the
set configuration in a randomized cross-over protocols used. Four of these studies (Comyns et
design. Although both protocols increased jump al., 2007; Gilbert and Lees, 2005; Krzysztofik et al.,
height 4 and 8 min post-intervention, the cluster 2020b, 2020c) support the relationship between a
set configuration reached significantly better higher volume load and potentiation stimuli. Of
results by 1.33 cm (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.65 cm) and the remaining 8 studies, one analysed the
1.64 cm (95% CI, 1.41 to 1.88 cm), respectively. neuromuscular function (Thomas et al., 2017),
Additionally, cluster set configuration was able to compared PAP in exercised and contralateral legs
maintain 10% higher power output (95% CI, 8 to (Andrews et al., 2016), compared the relationship
12%) relative to their relative mean propulsive between PAP and time under tension (Krzysztofik
power. et al., 2020a) and another studied the effects of
Lowery et al. (2012) studied the effects of plyometric PAP in bench press throw (Krzysztofik
three different loads (light, 56% 1RM; medium, and Wilk, 2020). The remaining 4 reported
70% 1RM; and heavy, 93% 1RM) on vertical jump contradictory results (Golas et al., 2017; Kobal et
height. Vertical jumps after the light load protocol al., 2019; Poulos et al., 2018; Reardon et al., 2014).
did not reach statistically significant differences. Four studies (Comyns et al., 2007; Gilbert
Moderate and high load protocols decreased and Lees, 2005; Krzysztofik et al., 2020b, 2020c)
vertical jump performance right after the support the notion of higher volume loads as
conditioning activity (p < 0.05; ESmedium loaded = -2.45, better potentiation stimuli. These three studies
large; ESheavy loaded = -2.87, large). Additionally, a compared different intensities and volumes
medium loaded protocol reached a significant ranging from 65% 1 RM to 130% 1 RM. Gilbert
performance increase at 4 min in the post and Lees (2005) found statistically significant
activation training protocol (p < 0.05; ES = 1.46, increases in the isometric RFD in the 1RM group
large) and a high loaded protocol reached at 15 min (p = 0.021) and 20 min (p = 0.006), with a
statistically significant improvements at both 4 peak increase of 11.8%. In the optimal power load
and 8 min post protocol (p < 0.05; ES4min = 1.34, group, a statistically significant increase (p = 0.038)
large; ES8min = 1.48, large). in the isometric RFD was found at 2 min, with a
Kilduff et al. (2008) attempted to set the peak increase of 6.7%. Comyns et al. (2007) found
optimal recovery time for a complex training that contact time showed a statistically significant
session. Participants performed 3 sets of 3 reduction (p < 0.05) and vertical leg spring
repetitions at 87% 1RM back squats before an stiffness indicated a significant increase (p < 0.05)
explosive activity. They reported a statistically for the heavy loaded protocol (93% 1RM).
significant (p < 0.05) decrease at 15 s post However, there were significantly (p < 0.01)
conditioning activity and a statistically significant shorter flight times for all the protocols.
(p < 0.05) increase at 8 min post conditioning Krzysztofik et al. (2020b) compared the
activity for power output and for jump height. A differences between a classic PAP protocol (2 sets
statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase in the of 2 repetitions of the concentric bench press at
RFD 8 min post conditioning activity was also 90% 1-RM) and eccentric protocols (2 sets of 2
reported. Additionally, Do Carmo et al. (2018) repetitions of either only eccentric 90% 1-RM, only
suggested that self-selected rest intervals were eccentric 110% 1-RM or only eccentric 130% 1-RM
better than a fixed rest interval in order to bench press). The study reported better
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics144 Post-activation potentiation in strength training
potentiation results with eccentric only protocols, 0.142) and in voluntary activation (p = 0.06) was
achieving greater peak velocity (η2 = 0.441; p = observed, but potentiated twitch force was
0.019) and greater mean velocity (η2 = 0.011; p = significantly (p < 0.001) reduced after strength
0.041) after the 110% 1-RM eccentric only protocol training (235 ± 65 N to 185 ± 51 N) in comparison
and greater peak velocity after the 130% 1-RM to the control group.
eccentric only protocol (η2 = 0.323; p = 0.037). In Andrews et al. (2016) studied the effect of
another study by Krzysztofik et al. (2020c) with unilateral squats potentiation in the exercised leg
the same eccentric protocols, the bench press and in the contralateral leg using a low fatigue
throw with a load of 30% 1-RM improved peak protocol. The results showed no statistically
power by 10.5 ± 6.0% ( effect size = 0.34) and by significant differences at 1, 5 and 10 min in
9.9 ± 8.1% (effect size = 0.33) for the 110 and 130% comparison to pre-test values for the drop jump
1-RM conditions, respectively. Peak velocity contact time or the drop jump reactive strength
increased by 5.9 ± 5.5% (effect size = 0.4) and by index. Regarding the CMJ, a condition x time
6.1 ± 6.1% (effect size 0.43) for the 100 and 130% 1- interaction indicated that the exercised leg
RM protocols, respectively. Since sets and exhibited significant but small to trivial
repetitions remained the same through protocols, magnitude jump height increases of 4.0% (p = 0.02;
the differences in volume load were a result of the d = 0.36), 0.9% (p = 0.06; d = 0.08) and 1.6% (p =
different intensities. 0.04; d = 0.15) at 1, 5 and 10min post-intervention,
Four studies (Golas et al., 2017; Kobal et respectively. The contralateral leg, on the other
al., 2019; Poulos et al., 2018; Reardon et al., 2014) hand, had trivial CMJ deficits post intervention:
showed conflicting results. In the study by Poulos 1.3% (p = 0.23; d = 0.12), 0.9% (p = 0.09; d = 0.10)
et al. (2018) both protocols (10 sets of 3 or 5 and 1.7% (p = 0.03; d = 0.19) at 1, 5 and 10min post-
repetitions with 87% 1RM vs. 65% 1RM intervention, respectively.
respectively) enhanced jump height (65% 1RM: Krzysztofik and Wilk (2020) showed that 3 sets
+3.3 ± 2.2% [CI: 1.0 to 5.6]; 87% 1RM +2.6% ± 1.9% of 5 repetitions of plyometric push ups with 1 min
[CI: 0.7 to 4.5]) after 10 sets. Nevertheless, there rest intervals improved bench press peak velocity
was a larger chance of jump height improvement (p < 0.01) and mean velocity (p < 0.01) compared to
when CMJs were performed across the 10 sets of a control group. In addition, Krzysztofik et al.
squats in the protocol of 87% 1RM. Golas et al. (2020a) also found that a PAP protocol consisting
(2017) compared five different protocols and they of 3 sets of 3 repetitions at 85% 1-RM achieved
observed statistically significant (p = 0.01) higher training volume based on time under
differences in the RFD and the rate of power tension at the end of the training session (p < 0.01)
development (RPD) (p = 0.02) in the medium when compared to a control group, despite
volume load group (80% 1RM) compared to the completing the same number of repetitions.
other conditions. Additionally, Kobal et al. (2019)
found that a lower volume load with a higher
Discussion
intensity (100% 1RM) protocol induced similar The main finding of this systematic
results to a higher volume load and lighter load review is that the volume load plays an important
protocol (93% 1RM and 87% 1RM). Reardon et al. role in performance enhancement after a
(2014) found no performance improvement in any conditioning activity. Four studies firmly support
of their protocols (3 sets of either 10 or 3 that the volume load is the main conditioning
repetitions with 75% 1RM vs. 90% 1RM). factor to achieve an optimal potentiation effect
Thomas et al. (2017) analysed (Comyns et al., 2007; Gilbert and Lees, 2005;
neuromuscular function using EMG during a PAP Krzysztofik et al., 2020b, 2020c), while four
protocol. Countermovement jump height showed contradictory results (Gołas et al., 2017;
increased significantly (p = 0.008) from pre- to Kobal et al., 2019; Poulos et al., 2018; Reardon et
post-potentiation (from 41.0 ± 4.3 cm to 44.7 ± 4.1 al., 2014). This systematic review also shows that
cm). Neuromuscular function was measured when the total volume is low, intensity seems to
before the first CMJ and after the last CMJ. A be decisive (Andrews et al., 2016; Poulos et al.,
small and statistically non-significant decrease in 2018).
the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) (p =
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 78/2021 http://www.johk.plby Arkaitz Garbisu-Hualde and Jordan Santos-Concejero 145
Figure 1
Flow chart of search strategy and selection of articles.
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics146 Post-activation potentiation in strength training
Table 1
Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) ratings and Oxford evidence levels of the included studies.
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Evidence level
Andrews et al. (2016) Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Comyns et al. (2007)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Dello Iacono et al. (2019)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2b
Do Carmo et al. (2018)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Gilbert & Lees (2007)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2b
Golas et al. (2017)
Yes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 2b
Kilduff et al. (2008)
Yes 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 2b
Kobal et al. (2019)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Krzysztofik et al. (2020a)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Krzysztofik et al. (2020b)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Krzysztofik et al. (2020c)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Krzysztofik and Wilk (2020)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2b
Lowery et al. (2012)
Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 1b
Mina et al. (2019)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1b
Poulos et al. (2018)
Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2b
Reardon et al. (2014)
Yes 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 2b
Thomas et al. (2015)
Items in the PEDro scale: 1 = eligibility criteria were specified; 2 = subjects were randomly allocated to
groups; 3 = allocation was concealed; 4 = the groups were similar at baseline regarding the most
important prognostic indicators; 5 = measures of 1 key outcome were obtained from 85% of subjects
initially allocated to groups; 6 = all subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the
treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least 1 key
outcome were analysed by “intention to treat”; 7 = the results of between-group statistical comparisons
are reported for at least 1 key outcome; 8= the study provides both point measures and measures of
variability for at least 1 key outcome
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 78/2021 http://www.johk.plby Arkaitz Garbisu-Hualde and Jordan Santos-Concejero 147
Table 2
Included studies
Study Number (M/F) Age (years) RT experience (years) Main Outcome
M 21.3 ± 1.8 / F
Andrews et al. (2016) 14 (8/6) ≥2 Unilateral PAP and fatigue
21.2 ± 0.4
Comyns et al. (2007) 12 (12/0) 23.3 ± 2.5 1RM ≥ 2x bodyweight Optimal resistive load and PAP
Dello Iacono et al. Traditional sets PAP vs cluster
26 (26/0) 23.2 ± 5.1 ≥2
(2019) sets PAP
Do Carmo et al. (2018) 12 (12/0) 25.4 ± 3.6 ≥3 PAP rest interval
Gilbert and Lees (2007) 15 (15/0) 24.3 ±3.3 unknown Changes in force development
Golas et al. (2017) 16 (16/0) 18-35 ≥5 Used PAP load magnitude
Kilduff et al. (2008) 20 (Unknown) 25.4 ± 4.8 3.1 ± 1.6 Recovery time and PAP
Kobal et al. (2019) 18 (18/0) 25.42 ± 3.58 3 Different volume and PAP
Krzysztofik et al. 12 (12/0) 25.2 ± 2.1 3 PAPE and training volume
(2020a)
Krzysztofik et al. 32 (32/0) 28.4 ± 4.5 3 Eccentric and concentric PAP
(2020b)
Krzysztofik et al. 13 (13/0) 25.7 ±1.9 6.5 ± 2.2 Eccentric PAP
(2020c)
Krzysztofik and Wilk 24 (24/0) 24.5 ± 2.6 6.3 ± 2.5 Plyometric PAP protocol
(2020)
Lowery et al. (2012) 13 (13/0) 21 ± 3 3 PAP stimuli and recovery time
PAP: free weight vs variable
Mina et al. (2019) 15 (15/0) 21.7 ± 1.1 ≥5
resistance
Poulos et al. (2018) 15 (15/0) 24.3 ± 2.6 ≥2 Back Squat intensity and PAP
Reardon (2014) 11 (11/0) 25.18 ± 3.60 1RM ≥ 2x bodyweight Muscle architecture and PAP
Thomas et al. (2015) 11 (11/0) 23 ± 4 ≥2 PAP and neuromuscular function
PAP = post activation potentiation; M = male; F = female; RT = resistance training
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics148 Post-activation potentiation in strength training
Recruitment of type II fibers is needed to intensity, the longer the rest interval the athlete
achieve potentiation, which is the result of needs to dissipate fatigue (do Carmo et al., 2018;
combining volume and intensity (Bawa et al., Gilbert and Lees, 2005).
2014; Bompa and Haff, 2009; Henneman et al., We also found different time-potentiation
1974; Maloney et al., 2014). As stated by profiles for high- and medium-load protocols. In
Schoenfeld (2010), in order to recruit high order the study by Lowery et al. (2012), heavy and
motor units, light loads are not as effective as medium protocols peaked at the same time point,
heavy loads. In the four studies (Comyns et al., but potentiation achieved with the heavy loaded
2007; Gilbert and Lees, 2005; Krzysztofik et al., protocol was maintained for a longer time. These
2020b, 2020c) firmly supporting our hypothesis, findings are in line with those of Gilber and Lees
high intensities were used (up to 130% 1 RM) to (2005), who reported different time-potentiation
achieve higher volume loads. However, profiles; while the optimal power load group
potentiation can be achieved using lower volume peaked earlier, the heavy loaded protocol group
loads as well (Gołas et al., 2017; Kobal et al., 2019). peaked later but with a higher potentiation effect
Gołas et al. (2017) and Kobal et al. (2019) (6.7% vs. 11.8%, respectively). These findings are
performed between 3 and 5 sets with different in line with those by Krzysztofik and Wilk (2020)
loads ranging from 60% 1 RM to 100% 1-RM with who observed the greater increase in peak
a fixed rest interval. Considering that fatigue is velocity and mean velocity of the bench press in
especially evident when training is performed the first set after the plyometric push ups
close to 1-RM or to failure (Dankel et al., 2017; protocol. Thus, the time-potentiation profiles
Zajac et al., 2015), the better potentiation achieved seem to be determined by the intensity of the
in these studies with lower volume loads may rely stimuli and the resting time (fatigue-potentiation
on the rest-time between the conditioning activity relationship). Fatigue in resistance training, as
and the re-test. Although according to Do Carmo suggested by Zajac et al. (2015), is produced by
et al. (2018) a self-selected rest may be sufficient to post-exercise intramuscular perturbations (i.e.,
improve performance, other studies suggest that decrease in phosphocreatine, glycogen, ATP
potentiation values peak after 8 min or longer stores and augmentation of phosphate and
resting periods (Gilbert and Lees, 2005; Kilduff et hydrogen ions) and modulation of central motor
al., 2008). drive during exercise by nociceptive afferent
The second finding is that a minimum input (III and IV muscle afferents). These changes
effective intensity is needed to achieve are especially evident when training sessions are
potentiation. However, intensity should be close to 1-RM. During submaximal contractions,
understood as the amount of repetitions in the closer to failure, the more motor units are
reserve and not as the percentage of 1-RM. In recruited, but also the higher the metabolite
order to achieve potentiation, we can either use accumulation, which contributes to fatigue
light loads with high volumes or high intensities (Dankel et al., 2017). This may partially explain
with low volumes (Bompa and Haff, 2009). Thus, the differences in the potentiation protocols
when leaving at least 2 repetitions in reserve, leaving too many (Andrews et al., 2016) or too
performing multiple sets leads to potentiation little (Reardon et al., 2014) repetitions in reserve
without accumulating excessive fatigue (Andrews during submaximal efforts.
et al., 2016; Poulos et al., 2018). However, We have to acknowledge several
although lowering intensity during the limitations. These include the lack of raw data for
conditioning activity may lead to lesser fatigue a deeper analysis. The main purpose of the review
(Mina et al., 2019), leaving too many repetitions in was to summarize the evidence so far and, if
reserve may not provide enough stimuli to elicit possible, to analyse differences in used protocols
potentiation (Helms et al., 2016; Reardon et al., based on the volume load. While the most recent
2014). On the other hand, leaving too few studies included raw data, the oldest ones did not.
repetitions in reserve (between 0 and 1) may lead This limited our intention to compare the volume
to excessive fatigue and impaired performance load of different protocols as we could not
after the conditioning activity (Helms et al., 2016; calculate it for 2 of the 13 studies. Another
Reardon et al., 2014). In this way, the higher the important limitation was related to the
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 78/2021 http://www.johk.plby Arkaitz Garbisu-Hualde and Jordan Santos-Concejero 149
heterogeneity of the protocols used. Finally, the achieved with 85% - 90% 1RM intensities.
results of this review cannot be extrapolated to Higher intensities are useful, but they need
the general population as it only analysed trained longer rest intervals.
subjects and almost all subjects were men. All 3. Repetitions to failure or almost to failure are
these limitations imply that the conclusions of this not recommended because of the fatigue
review should be interpreted with caution. generated (2-3 repetitions in reserve).
Conclusions 4. Around 7-8 minutes of rest should be allowed
Although different protocols can be used in order to dissipate fatigue. Self-selected rest
to achieve post-activation potentiation, it seems intervals are valid too, as they adjust quite
that higher intensities induce better performance precisely.
enhancement. Our results indicate that 5. Due to major sensitivity of type II fibres to
potentiation effect exists as long as minimum calcium concentration, athletes with a higher
intensity and sufficient rest intervals are percentage of type II fibres will benefit more
provided. More precisely, the results of this study from heavy loads and longer rest intervals
highlight the following: after PAP protocols (Blazevich and Babault,
1. Experienced athletes benefit more from a 2019).
higher volume potentiation bout (1-3 sets), 6. Plyometric protocols combined with short or
especially when the optimal power load is medium rest intervals are useful post-
used. activation protocols for the bench press.
2. Intensities of 65% 1RM are valid with high
volumes, but higher potentiation effects can be
References
Andrews SK, Horodyski JM, Macleod DA, Whitten J, Behm DG. The interaction of fatigue and potentiation
following an acute bout of unilateral squats. J Sport Sci Med, 2016; 15: 625–32
Bawa PNS, Jones KE, Stein RB. Assessment of size ordered recruitment. J Hum Kinet, 2014; 49: 159–69
Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total number of sets as a training volume quantification
method for muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res, 2018; 00: 1–9
Blazevich AJ, Babault N. Post-activation Potentiation Versus Post-activation Performance Enhancement in
Humans: Historical Perspective, Underlying Mechanisms, and Current Issues. Front Physiol, 2019; 10,
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01359
Bompa TO, Haff GG. Periodization: theory and methodology of training (5th edition). 2009
do Carmo EC, De Souza EO, Roschel H, Kobal R, Ramos H, Gil S, Tricoli V. Self-Selected Rest Interval
Improves Vertical Jump Post-Activation Potentiation. J Strength Cond Res, 2018: 1
Comyns TM, Harrison AJ, Hennessy L, Jensen RL. Identifying the optimal resistive load for complex training
in male rugby players. Sport Biomech, 2007; 6: 59–70
Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Do metabolites that are produced
during resistance exercise enhance muscle hypertrophy? Eur J Appl Physiol, 2017; 117: 2125–35
Gilbert G, Lees A. Changes in the force development characteristics of muscle following repeated maximum
force and power exercise. Ergonomics, 2005; 48: 1576–84
Gołas´ A, Wilk M, Stastny P, Maszczyk A, Pajerska K, Zajac A. Optimizing half squat postactivation
potential load in squat jump training for eliciting relative maximal power in ski jumpers. J Strength
Cond Res, 2017; 31: 3010–7
Gołaś A, Maszczyk A, Zajac A, Mikołajec K, Stastny P. Optimizing post activation potentiation for explosive
activities in competitive sports. J Hum Kinet, 2016; 52: 95–106
Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of
Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training. Strength Cond J, 2016; 38: 42–9
Henneman E, Ckamann PH, Gillies DJ, Skinner RD. Rank order of motoneurons within a pool: law of
combination. J Neurophysiol, 1974; 37: 1338–49
Dello Iacono A, Beato M, Halperin I. The Effects of Cluster-Set and Traditional-Set Postactivation
Potentiation Protocols on Vertical Jump Performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2019: 1–6
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics150 Post-activation potentiation in strength training
Dello Iacono A, Padulo J, Seitz LD. Loaded hip thrust-based PAP protocol effects on acceleration and sprint
performance of handball players: Original Investigation. J Sports Sci, 2018; 36: 1269–76
Kilduff LP, Owen N, Bevan H, Bennett M, Kingsley MIC, Cunningham D. Influence of recovery time on
post-activation potentiation in professional rugby players. J Sports Sci, 2008; 26: 795–802
Kobal R, Pereira LA, Kitamura K, Paulo AC, Ramos HA, Carmo EC, Roschel H, Tricoli V, Bishop C, Loturco
I. Post-Activation Potentiation: Is there an Optimal Training Volume and Intensity to Induce
Improvements in Vertical Jump Ability in Highly-Trained Subjects? J Hum Kinet, 2019; 66: 195–203
Krzysztofik M, Wilk M. The Effects of Plyometric Conditioning on Post-Activation Bench Press Performance.
J Hum Kinet, 2020; 74: 7-20
Krzysztofik M, Wilk M, Filip A, Zmijewski P, Zajac A, Tufano JJ. Can post-activation performance
enhancement (PAPE) improve resistance training volume during the bench press exercise? Int J
Environ Res Public Health, 2020a; 17: 2554
Krzysztofik M, Wilk M, Golas A, Lockie RG, Maszczyk A, Zajac A. Does Eccentric-only and Concentric-only
Activation Increase Power Output? Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2020b; 52: 484–9
Krzysztofik M, Wilk M, Lockie RG, Golas A, Zajac A, Bogdanis GC. Postactivation Performance
Enhancement of Concentric Bench Press Throw After Eccentric-Only Conditioning Exercise. J Strength
Cond Res, 2020c; Epub ahead of print
Lowery RP, Duncan NM, Loenneke JP, Sikorski EM, Naimo MA, Brown LE, Wilson FG, Wilson JM. The
Effects of Potentiating Stimuli Intensity Under Varying Rest Periods on Vertical Jump Performance
and Power. J Strength Cond Res, 2012; 26: 3320–5
Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating
Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials. Phys Ther, 2003; 83: 713–21
Maloney SJ, Turner AN, Fletcher IM. Ballistic Exercise as a Pre-Activation Stimulus: A Review of the
Literature and Practical Applications. Sport Med, 2014; 44: 1347–59
Mina MA, Blazevich AJ, Tsatalas T, Giakas G, Seitz LB, Kay AD. Variable, but not free-weight, resistance
back squat exercise potentiates jump performance following a comprehensive task-specific warm-up.
Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2019; 29: 380–92
Morin J, Edouard P, Samozino P. Technical Ability of Force Application as a determinant factor of sprint
performance. Med Sci Sport Exerc, 2010; 43: 1680–8
de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a
demographic study. Aust J Physiother, 2009; 55: 129–33
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. Home - CEBM. “The Oxford 2011 Levels Evidence” Oxford Cent
Evidence-Based Med, 2011
Poulos N, Chaouachi A, Buchheit M, Slimani D, Haff GG, Newton RU, Germain PS. Complex training and
countermovement jump performance across multiple sets: Effect of back squat intensity. Kinesiology,
2018; 50: 75–89
Reardon D, Hoffman JR, Mangine GT, Gonzalez AM, Wells AJ, Fukuda DH, Fragala MS, Stout JR. Do Acute
Changes In Muscle Architecture Affect Post-Activation Potentiation? Med Sci Sport Exerc, 2014; 46: 354
Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Strength
Cond Res, 2010; 24: 2857–72
Thomas K, Toward A, West DJ, Howatson G, Goodall S. Heavy-resistance exercise-induced increases in
jump performance are not explained by changes in neuromuscular function. Scand J Med Sci Sport,
2017; 27:3 5–44
Zajac A, Chalimoniuk M, Gołas̈ A, Lngfort J, Maszczyk A. Central and peripheral fatigue during resistance
exercise - A critical review. J Hum Kinet, 2015; 49: 159–69
Corresponding author:
Arkaitz-Garbisu Hualde
Faculty of Education and Sport, Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque
Country UPV/EHU, Portal de Lasarte 71, 01007, Vitoria-Gasteiz, SPAIN.
Phone: +34 672 777 827; E-mail address: agarbisu002@ehu.eus;
Journal of Human Kinetics - volume 78/2021 http://www.johk.plYou can also read
